Show of Hands

Lol. They don't come from abortions. They come from discarded embryos in IVF that didn't take.

Teeheeheehee.

Employees and (about) 10000 users that use the lab every year, public funding keeps the transparency and the public access open. Without federal funding, the top quark would not have been discovered in the US when it had been. Keep finding science!!!

It's called crowding out. Not only was their science before it was federally funded - but it wad better. But even were this not the case, why should people be robbed to fund research? Sorry, you're not a scientist - you're a thief.

Good point.

Actually, my education allowed me to read and understand the question. The question is whether tax payer $$ should be used. I can't speak for everyone that voted no, but I can tell you that my no vote is for keeping the government out of it.
I'm all

For private research.
I just wanted to speak on behalf of at least some of the uneducated.

It's a better investment than medicine (which is chemicals) so do you not support any tax money going toward more advanced medical research than the traditional pill?

No. The government should not be investing money in any endeavors. Lower taxes and incentivize private industry. Private industry will always "always" be more efficient, and be more successful with their results.
I'm for getting result.

Sorry, but it's you whose in the dark here. i said no because I oppose Federal funding for everything. Private science is better, and better when not competing with an unlimited supply of stolen money, and science for political gain.

Ok genius.

Says the knuckle-dragger who does whatever the government he kneels before tells him, no matter now illogical.

The question isn't whether the research should be pursued. The question is whether tax payer money should be used.
Remember, some people don't believe in this based on religious grounds.

2. Stop voting in elections.

Why should I stop voting in elections? Just because our opinions don't agree?

Maybe we could stop paying taxes for something useless and start paying for something that could save life's.

Sorry. Somehow that comment that was aimed at someone else got posted as a reply to your comment.
My bad.

Stepping on the young and oppressing the unborn is now considered "progressive?"

You are clueless! The question wasn't a moral question of whether the research should be done.
The question is whether taxpayer money should be used.
There are 2 things I wish you would do.
1. Read and understand before you answer.

2. Stop voting in elections.

The Demokratskiiys in academia are enrolling them in The Party first. Remember the "Obama uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh" song? And teachers who blanket-fail students who disagree with the Pravda?

Yes, your version of totalitarianism is far more appealing.

Sorry pumpkin, but there is a growing strain of intelligent young people who realize the Democrats are just as bad.

not now really tell that to people who have life threatening diseases

Sunset, tell that to the people paying crushing tax burdens, or whose jobs have been destroyed, or who die because the FDA decided the drug that would save them needs more testing. The private sector does everything better - except waste money.

What people fail to also get from the news is that advances using adult stem cells far outweigh those of embryonic stem cells.

Adult stem cells have seen tremendous practical value and embryonic have not. This is just another progressive attack.

Argh.. Politicizing.

kitty - Do you know the difference between embryonic stem cells and umbilical stem cells? I'm not ignorant; I have used (mouse) embryonic stem cells in research. There is a difference. Both may be useful, but you do not get "these stem cells" from an umbilical cord. Nor are embryonic stem cells...

..gotten from a *fetus.* They can ONLY be derived from 4-5-day-old very early embryos consisting of 50-150 undifferentiated cells.

stem research isn't synonymous with abortion....

Exactly. It is synonymous with curing people and allowing for ling & healthy lives. Yet, more republicans are against this than democrats. Makes no sense.

We are against federal funding of it. The government should not be involved in it!

CtYankee. Are you unable to read and understand? The question didn't ask if we were against using tax payer $$.
Where do you get off making assumptions about people like me.
I'm all for stem cell research. Without the gov't getting involved.
GET IT?

The question only asked about tax payer funds.
My terrible wording above.

doesn't*

Because the benefits far far far outweigh the cost. Many lives would be saved and Libertarians are grounded in the "life, liberty & pursuit of happiness" belief. We don't believe in NO govt, just a govt that serves the people how it should

There is no benefit that can't be reached in other cheaper means. Get informed!!!

Cowboy! Jeez, have you been missed! So glad you're back!

I didn't think this app worked anymore. They must've fixed it.

And thanks.

Are you using the new website version? A lot of people are loving it!

No, I'm on the droid.

What type of levels? Explain please.

Embryos are human. They are are human in source and origin. They are not frogs or cats or water lillies.

Why do you, or the government, get to choose who lives and who doesn't?

Actually, what many don't understand, is that "embryonic" cells are not all embryos. We have stem cells in our bone marrow that can be used and harms no one. The mere term freaks people out. I do medical research and this can save lives, many at that. And I am a die hard republican.

peck - are you saying that the stem cells in bone marrow are *embryonic* stem cells? Because adult stem cells are not the same as embryonic stem cells, and I'm not aware of any embryonic stem cells in adult tissue. Do you have a reference for this?

"embryonic" cells are not all embryos."

I don't understand that phrase. Could you explain, please?

Meant to put cells and the "embryonic" was intended to emphasize how we don't need embryos to get these stem cells. They are the same cells Susanr

So who do you believe should pay for research?

It would be a bit of a reversal. They've been doing it since 1870.

research should be funded privately

..alternative solutions, they will pay off in the near future.

LOL

Because the government usually employs the best and brightest scientist. Private enterprise did not get man to the moon or build the first nuke.

Are you saying that only government employees worked on those projects? I could have sworn that the government contracts much of its work out..

It said fund, not employ. If they fund the right people it could be beneficial.